National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Education Programs November 2009
Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Education Programs Introduction The National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment has been established by the Higher Council of Education in Saudi Arabia with responsibility to establish standards and accredit institutions and programs in post secondary education. The system for quality assurance and accreditation is designed to support continuing quality improvement and to publicly recognize programs and institutions that meet required quality standards. The objective is to ensure good international standards in all post secondary institutions and in all programs offered in Saudi Arabia. Students, employers, parents and members of the community should be able to have complete confidence that what has been learned by students, the research conducted, and the services provided are equivalent to good international practice. Accreditation of a program will give public recognition that these standards have been achieved. Saudi Arabian qualifications should be accepted without question anywhere in the world. This document deals with standards for higher education programs. The standards apply to programs in all public and private universities and colleges, including those responsible to the Ministry of Higher Education and to any established or regulated by other ministries or agencies. The only exception is for military education which is administered under different arrangements. There is considerable variation in the amount of experience that higher education institutions have had with quality assurance processes and the system of higher education is expanding rapidly. In recognition of this the system for accreditation will be introduced progressively over a transition period of several years. During this time programs may be considered for accreditation in institutions that are well advanced with the introduction of quality assurance systems, and others will be evaluated and accredited as their internal quality assurance systems are put in place. The National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment in Saudi Arabia has developed a set of standards for quality assurance and accreditation of higher education institutions and programs in eleven general areas of activity. 1. Mission Goals and Objectives 2. Program Administration 3. Management of Program Quality Assurance 4. Learning and Teaching 5. Student Administration and Support Services 6. Learning Resources 7. Facilities and Equipment 8. Financial Planning and Management 9. Employment Processes 10. Research 11. Relationships With the Community These standards are based on what is generally considered good practice in higher education throughout the world and adapted to meet the particular circumstances of higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The standards are described with several levels of detail. First, there are general descriptions for each of the eleven major areas of activity. Second, these are broken down into sub-standards dealing with requirements within each of the major areas. Third, within each of those sub-standards there are a number of good practices that are carried out in good quality institutions. To evaluate performance in 1
relation to the standards, a college or department offering the program should investigate whether these good practices are carried out and how well this is done. A set of self evaluation scales has been prepared to assist in this process. (Self Evaluation Scales for Higher Education Programs) In that document the groups carrying out the evaluation of the program are asked whether the particular practices are followed, and to rate the quality of those practices in the program on a five point rating scale. Their judgments of quality MUST be based on appropriate evidence including at least some comparisons with other comparable programs in their own and other institutions on important items. The development of internal systems to provide that evidence is an essential requirement for an institution s quality assurance system. Unless adequate sources of evidence are available in an institution a program cannot be considered for accreditation. To be granted accreditation it is necessary for evidence of good quality performance to be provided in relation to all the eleven general standards and with all of the subsections of those standards. There is one exception. Any institution with the title university is expected to meet the standard for research and a college within a university is expected to contribute to those requirements. A private college offering only undergraduate programs is not required to have any significant involvement in research though teaching staff must have continuing involvement in scholarly activities in their field of study. It is not expected that a program will achieve a high rating for every good practice described within the sub-sections of the standards. They are not a simple check list, and are not equal in importance. Their importance will vary according to the mission and objectives of the program and the institution within which it is offered, and its stage of development. However it is desirable that all are met and some are essential. In the initial stages of the introduction of the quality assurance and accreditation system the Commission will indicate a number of items to which special attention will be given. The judgment about whether accreditation should be granted will be an overall assessment by an experienced peer review panel taking account of the mission, objectives and stage of development of the institution and the program and the priorities identified by the Commission. A description of the eleven general standards as they apply to programs is provided in this document together with some comments on possible performance indicators and kinds of evidence that could be considered in determining quality of performance in relation to those standards. Further guidance on the use of the standards for monitoring performance and preparations for accreditation is given in Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Saudi Arabia prepared by the Commission. Relationships Between Standards for Institutions and Standards for Programs General standards have been developed for higher education institutions and programs. They cover the same general areas of activity but there are some differences that reflect a total institutional overview on the one hand and the perspective of just one specific program on the other. In addition, some general institutional functions are not considered in a program evaluation. Activities relating to the standards fall into three categories. Those that are institutional and have no impact or only very indirect impact on programs. Examples include the management of extra curricular activities or the attractiveness of buildings and grounds. These are not considered in looking at the application of the standards to programs. Those that are general institutional activities with a major impact on programs. Examples would be the provision of learning resources through a library or the processes for employment and promotion of teaching staff. These should be considered in evaluating a program as they impact on the program concerned. For example whether the library provides the services needed for the particular program being considered, or whether appropriately qualified and experienced faculty and staff are available to teach in the program. The quality of a program is affected by these things regardless of who is responsible for administering them. Evaluation of these functions in an institutional evaluation would be broader and consider the quality of management and services provided for the institution as a whole and how effectively they support all programs throughout the institution. Those that relate directly to the planning and delivery of programs. Examples would be the appropriateness of intended learning outcomes for students and the quality of teaching in the program. For an institutional evaluation these things should be looked at within all programs, 2
and then a judgment made about strengths and weaknesses in the institution s programs as a whole. This would normally be done by getting a profile of performance at the level of departments or colleges, and then preparing a report identifying similarities and differences and overall performance for programs in general. In this document a selection has been made of the things that should be considered in relation to evaluation of programs. They include the matters described in the second and third categories above. Special Requirements for Specific Fields of Study These standards are expressed in general terms and apply to all programs in higher education. In addition it is necessary for programs to meet any special requirements that apply to specific fields of study. This is particularly relevant to professional programs that must prepare students to practice as skilled professionals in their chosen field. For example, a program in medicine must develop all the knowledge and skill required of a medical practitioner, and a program in civil engineering must develop the abilities required of a civil engineer. The general standards include a requirement that plans for a program be developed after considering relevant academic and professional advice. Consequently for a judgment to be made about the accreditation of individual programs it is also necessary to consider any special requirements that are applicable to particular fields of study. This can include consideration of what is done at other good institutions offering similar programs or advice from senior staff at such institutions. For a professional program it should also include consultations with experienced professionals in the field of activity familiar with any special requirements for working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Specific field of study requirements are being developed by the Commission but are not yet available. However an important additional source of advice is the standards set out by relevant international specialist accreditors in a number of different professional fields. Notes on What Constitutes a Program A program is regarded as an integrated package of courses and activities in an academic or professional field leading to a qualification. However organizational arrangements in institutions differ and there are sometimes questions about what should be considered as a program. A program includes all of the courses a student is required to take, including courses that are required by an institution or a college as well as those required by a department, and including any general education courses as well as those in a professional or academic field. It includes courses that may be offered as service courses by another department or college. A program offered on both men s and women s campuses is a single program and should be evaluated as such. However since there may be significant differences in facilities, resources, experience of faculty, employment of graduates or other matters evidence should be obtained about what happens on each campus and any differences noted and considered in planning what should be done in response. Program reports should show both the evaluations for each campus and a combined result. A program offered on a remote as well as on an institution s main campus should be dealt with in the same way, that is, information should be obtained about the program in each location and then combined in a single report that identifies any significant variations. The same principle applies to a program offered either on-campus or through distance education. That is, information should be collected for programs in each mode of delivery, and reported in a way that shows clearly any differences found. There are also a number of additional matters that relate to distance education and the distance education portion of the program must be considered using the standards for distance education that have been developed by the Commission. A program may have an early exit point, for example it may be possible for students to complete two years of study and receive a diploma or to continue for several more years and complete a bachelor degree. If this is done it is essential that the diploma be planned so that it provides a complete and 3
useful qualification in its own right. For example it might include significantly more practical and applied work in the field than students would normally undertake in the first two years of a bachelor degree program. It is not acceptable for such an award to be granted simply because students fail or drop out after the early parts of a longer program. The distinction between what is regarded as a single program or a cluster of related programs is difficult to define and may be best explained through examples. A bachelors degree program to prepare a student as a civil engineer would be regarded as a different program from one to prepare a mechanical engineer, even though there may be some courses that are common to both. Similarly, if a student had completed the bachelors degree program and wished to take a post graduate program leading to a masters degree or a doctorate in the same general field, that would be regarded as a separate program. The test in these examples relates to there being a qualification that is regarded as being complete in itself, and in the case of a professional program, qualifying the person who has taken the program for professional practice in the field. The distinction does not necessarily relate to organization of an institution or college into departments. In the particular example given it is likely that a civil engineering department would offer both the undergraduate and the postgraduate programs. It would also be possible if an institution wished to organize itself in that way for a single department to offer programs in both civil and mechanical engineering. The title of an academic award is not necessarily a useful guide to what should be regarded as a program. For example general titles such as Bachelor of Arts, or Business, or Science, could include many different programs. In an Arts degree there could be programs in history and or social sciences, in psychology, in social work, or many others. A Business degree could include separate programs for accountants, for economists, or for management and administration, and these would be different programs leading to quite different occupational skills even though there may be a number of common courses. The programs that have been used in these examples are separate entities, and will be accredited as such. However this does not prevent groups of related programs being considered together by an external review team in the accreditation process provided it is possible for external review panels to include the necessary expertise. A panel might consider an undergraduate and a postgraduate program in the same field at the same time. However the institution s self study and the reports of the review panel will deal separately with each program and it would be possible for one such program to be accredited and not the other. Guidance on the planning and review of new and existing programs to meet these requirements is provided in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Saudi Arabia. Evidence of Performance Judgments about quality based on general impressions could be accurate, but they could also be badly distorted for a number of reasons. Consequently general opinions without supporting evidence cannot be relied on in making assessments of quality. Because of this it is necessary to consider appropriate forms of evidence whenever a judgment is made about quality of performance in relation to standards. What is appropriate evidence will vary widely for different things that are evaluated and an important element in any quality assessment is to decide on what kind of evidence is appropriate for the matter being considered. In many cases several different forms of evidence should be considered to make a reliable judgment, and the evidence will need to be interpreted. For example high average grades in a course could mean that students have achieved very high standards because of excellent teaching. Alternatively they could mean that standards are low and grades have been inflated. To draw valid conclusions it would be necessary to check that tests were sufficiently rigorous and that criteria for allocating grades were appropriate and fairly administered. 4
Interpretations of evidence can also be unreliable, and to guard against this it is recommended that groups that undertake evaluations in relation to the standards include some people who have been involved in the activity concerned, some who are the recipients of the service provided (eg students, graduates, or members of other departments for which service courses are provided) and also some who are familiar with that kind of program, but are not directly involved. As a further safeguard it is recommended that the final judgments be reviewed by someone who has not been involved in the initial evaluation as a check on whether the interpretations seem reasonable in the light of the evidence provided. Performance Indicators A wide range of kinds of evidence can be considered. However as part of the evidence to be used decisions should be made about some specific items of information that can be expressed in quantitative terms and used as performance indicators. These should be identified in advance as part of planning processes. For example when major goals or objectives are established specific indicators should be specified so achievement of those goals and objectives can be monitored on a continuing basis. It is also important for an institution to identify some key performance indicators that will be used consistently by departments and colleges throughout the institution to monitor their own performance, provide for comparisons of performance between departments and colleges, and permit university committees and senior administrators to monitor the quality of programs throughout the institution on a continuing basis. Data on these indicators should be collected in standard form, retained in the department and in a central database. Summaries including comparative information should be distributed to departments, colleges, senior administrators and key committees so there can be comparisons within the institution and over time. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these processes will consider whether appropriate indicators have been identified, whether the data is consistently collected and recorded, and whether the information is used in monitoring and analysing quality of performance. While it is the responsibility of every program to monitor and plan for improvement in relation to its own mission and objectives the Commission has also identified certain key performance indicators on which information should be provided by all institutions. This requirement has several important objectives. It provides a common set of statistical data that can be used by programs for comparisons of performance within their institution and benchmarking with other programs within the country. (The Commission will publish information for groups of similar institutions, but individual institutional and program data will be confidential to each institution) It assists the Commission and other relevant Ministries and organizations in monitoring the quality of performance of the system of higher education as a whole, and it provides a sample of important information about institutions and programs that makes it possible for the Commission to maintain accreditation of institutions and programs in the interval between major external reviews. These indicators established by the Commission should be used by institutions and departments administering programs as part of their quality assurance processes, but they are also encouraged to add additional indicators which they select for themselves that relate to their own mission and objectives and their priorities for improvement. Good Practices Relevant to More than One Standard Within each standard and sub-standard a number of statements are made about things that should be done if the standard (or sub-standard) is being met. Many of these statements appear in several different places. This should not be regarded as unnecessary duplication, but rather as a result of the fact that a number of practices are relevant to more than one standard. For example, an expectation that teaching staff be involved on a continuing basis with scholarly activities that ensure they remain up to date is relevant to Qualifications and Experience of Teaching Staff (Standard 4.8) and also to Personal and Career Development (Standard 9.3), and an expectation that standards of learning outcomes should be checked against the National Qualifications Framework and standards at other comparable institutions is relevant to the standard for 5
Management of Quality Assurance and Improvement (Standard 3) and also to the sub-standards for Student Learning Outcomes (Standard 4.1) and Student Assessment (Standard 4.4). Application of the Standards to Programs in Different Types of Institutions. The standards are designed for programs in all higher education institutions, that is institutions offering programs described as higher education and leading to higher education qualifications in the National Qualifications Framework. While the general standards for higher education are the same for all providers there are some important differences in the circumstances of some types of institutions that affect how the standards should be applied. There are some differences in the regulations affecting public and private institutions, including some relating to borrowing, fee payments by students and financial management. Consequently some of the standards specified for these matters are not relevant in some institutions. As indicated above there are special requirements affecting universities relating to involvement in research. Although scholarly activities on the part of teaching staff should be encouraged in all institutions these requirements for research do not have to be met in private colleges that are not part of universities. Some institutions are involved in partnership arrangements with other institutions, either within or outside the Kingdom, under which certain elements of program planning and evaluation are shared. If such arrangements exist processes must be followed that ensure that quality is maintained and the requirements of the Saudi Arabian system are met. Some institutions offer programs by distance education. This different form of delivery changes the form of interaction between students and institutions and leads to additional requirements for program delivery and support. (see note below) In the statements of standards and in the related document providing self evaluation scales attention is drawn to some of these differences. However some flexibility is required in the application of the standards in cases where a particular requirement is not applicable to the institution concerned. An equivalent set of standards has been developed for institutions offering post secondary programs in technical education and training. These standards differ from those for higher education institutions because of important differences in the nature of programs and the processes for program development and delivery. The standards for these institutions are set out in another document, Standards for Accreditation of Technical Education and Training Institutions. Standards for Distance Education Programs This document has been prepared for programs through conventional and largely campus-based instruction. For programs through distance education methodology there are some different expectations that relate to that mode of teaching. The standards for distance education or dual mode or blended instruction (a combination of conventional and distance education) standards are set out in separate publications. 6
Self Evaluation Scales High quality standards can only be achieved by action planned and undertaken within the institutions offering educational programs. In keeping with this the approach to quality assurance and accreditation of institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on self evaluation in relation to generally accepted standards of good practice, and verified by independent external review. To support this approach the standards are supported by self evaluation scales through which institutions (or sections responsible for particular functions within them) and faculty and staff responsible for programs rate their own performance using a starring system. Self evaluation scales that relate directly to these standards are included in separate publications. Self Evaluation Scales for Higher Education Institutions and Self Evaluation Scales for Higher Education Programs. It is expected that these self evaluation scales will be used by institutions, and by those responsible for programs in their initial quality assessment, their continuing monitoring of performance, and in their more extensive periodic self studies prior to an accreditation review by the Commission. 7
Standards for Accreditation of Higher Education Programs Standard 1. Mission Goals and Objectives The mission of the program must be consistent with that for the institution and apply that mission to the particular goals and requirements of the program concerned. It must clearly and appropriately define the program s principal purposes and priorities and be influential in guiding planning and action. Requirements 1.1 Appropriateness of the Mission; The mission statement must be appropriate for the institution and for a program of its type in Saudi Arabia. 1.1.1 The mission for the program should be consistent with the mission of the institution. 1.1.2 The mission should establish directions for the development of the program that are appropriate for a program of its type and the needs of students in Saudi Arabia. 1.1.3 The mission should be consistent with Islamic beliefs and values. 1.1.4 The mission should be explained to its stakeholders in ways that demonstrate its appropriateness. (which may relate to local, national or international issues) 1.2 Usefulness of the Mission Statement The mission statement must be useful in guiding planning and decision making for the program. 1.2.1 The mission statement should be sufficiently specific to provide an effective guide for decision-making and choices among alternative planning strategies. 1.2.2 The mission statement should be achievable through effective strategies that can be implemented within the level of resources expected to be available. 1.2.3 The mission statement should be clear enough to provide criteria for evaluation of progress towards the achievement of the program goals and objectives. 1.3 Development and Review of the Mission The mission must be developed through consultative processes and formally adopted and periodically reviewed. 1.3.1 The mission should be defined in consultation with and with the support of major stakeholders. 1.3.2 The mission should be formally approved by the appropriate decision making body within the institution. 1.3.3 The mission should be periodically reviewed and reaffirmed or amended as appropriate in the light of changing circumstances. 1.3.4 Stakeholders should be kept informed about the mission and any changes made to it. 8
1.4 Use Made of the Mission The mission must be used consistently as a basis for planning and major policy decisions. 1.4.1 The mission should be used as the basis for a strategic plan over a specified medium term (eg. 5 years). 1.4.2 The mission should be publicized widely among those associated with the program and action taken to ensure it is known about and supported by teaching and other staff and students. 1.4.3 The mission should be used to provide criteria for consideration of major program proposals. 1.5 Relationship Between Mission, Goals and Objectives The mission must be used to guide the establishment of goals and objectives and strategic plans for the development of the program. 1.5.1 Goals for the development of the program should be consistent with and support the mission. 1.5.2 Goals should be stated clearly enough to guide planning and decision making in ways that are consistent with the mission. 1.5.3 Goals and objectives for the development of the program should be reviewed periodically and modified if necessary in response to results achieved and changing circumstances. 1.5.4 Statements of major objectives should be accompanied by specification of clearly defined and measurable indicators that are used to judge the extent to which objectives are being achieved. Evidence and Performance Indicators Evidence about the quality of the mission could be obtained from examination of the mission statement itself, copies of papers proposing the mission or modifications in it, interviews with teaching and other staff and students and graduates to find out how well it is known and supported, and consideration of other reports, proposals and statements to see the extent to which the mission is used as a basis for decisions. Indicators that could be used include responses to questions on surveys to see how well the mission is known and supported, or the proportion of policy decisions that refer to the mission among criteria for the decision made. 9
Standard 2: Program Administration Program administration must provide effective leadership and reflect an appropriate balance between accountability to senior management and the governing board of the institution within which the program is offered, and flexibility to meet the specific requirements of the program concerned. Planning processes must involve stakeholders (eg. students, professional bodies, industry representatives, teaching staff) in establishing goals and objectives and reviewing and responding to results achieved. If a program is offered in sections for male and female students resources for the program must be comparable in both sections and there must be effective communication between them and equitable involvement in planning processes. The quality of delivery of courses and the program as a whole must be regularly monitored with adjustments made promptly in response to this feedback and to developments in the external environment affecting the program. Requirements 2.1 Leadership Program administrators must provide effective and responsible leadership for the development and improvement of the program. 2.1.1 The responsibilities of program administrators (department chairs or others) should be clearly defined in position descriptions. 2.1.2 There should be sufficient flexibility at the level of the department or college offering the program to respond rapidly to course and program evaluations and changes in program learning outcome requirements, (eg. Departments should have authority to change text and reference lists, modify planned teaching strategies, details of assessment tasks and updating of course content.) 2.1.3 Program administrators should anticipate issues and opportunities and exercise initiative in response. 2.1.4 Program administrators should ensure that when action is needed it is taken in an effective and timely manner. 2.1.5 Program administrators should have sufficient authority to ensure compliance within the program with formally established or agreed institutional or program policies and procedures. 2.1.6 Program administrators should provide leadership, and encourage and reward initiative on the part of teaching and other staff. 2.1.7 Program administrators should accept responsibility for the effectiveness of action taken within their area of responsibility regardless of whether that action is taken by them personally or by others responsible to them. 2.1.8 Regular feedback should be given on performance of teaching and other staff by the head of the department. 2.1.9 Delegations of responsibility should be formally specified in documents signed by the person delegating and the person given delegated authority, that describe clearly the limits of delegated responsibility and responsibility for reporting on decisions made. 2.1.10 Regulations governing delegations of responsibility should be established for the institution and approved by the governing board. These regulations should indicate key functions that cannot be delegated, and specify that delegation of authority to another person or organization does not remove responsibility for consequences of decisions made from the person giving the delegation. Delegations affecting the program should be consistent with these regulations. 2.1.11 Advice and support should be made available to teaching and other staff in a manner that contributes to their personal and professional development. 2.1.12 Proposals for program developments and recommendations on policy issues should be presented to the appropriate decision making body in a form that clearly identifies the issues for decision and the consequences of alternatives. 2.2 Planning Processes Planning processes must be managed effectively to achieve the mission and goals of the program through cooperative action by the instructional team and program and course reporting and decasion 10
making. Planning must combine coordinated strategic planning with flexibility to adapt to results achieved and changing circumstance. To satisfy these requarements: 2.2.1 Planning should be strategic, incorporating priorities for develgpment and appropriate sequencing of action to produce the most effective short-term and long-term results. 2.2.2 Plans should take full and realistic account of aspects of the external environment affecting demand for graduates and the skills they require. 2.2.3 Planning processes should provide for involvement of teaching and other staff, students and other stakeholders. 2.2.4 Planning should have a particular focus on intended learning outcomes for students with course content and teaching and assessment strategies that reflect both the background of students and theory and research on different kinds of learning. (For advice on the planning of new programs and review and documendation of existing programs refer to Section 2.4.7 in Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Saudi Arabia Part 2, Internal Quality Assurance Arrangements. 2.2.5 Plans should be effectively communicated to all concerned with impacts and requirementq for different constituencies made clear. 2.2.6 Implementation of plans should be monitnred with checks made against short term and medium term targets and outcomes evaluated. 2.2.7 Planning should provide for regular reports on key performance indicators to senior management in the institution. 2.2.8 Plans should be reviewed, adapted and modified, with corrective action taken as required in response to operational developments, formative evaluation, and changing circumstances. 2.2.9 Planning should incorporate risk management as an integral component of planning strategies with appropriate mechanisms developed for risk assessment and minimization. 2.3 Relationship Between Sections for Male and Female Students In programs offered in sections for male and female students the program administrators and teaching staff in both sections must participate fully in cooperative planning, decision making and program and course reporting. There must be equitable distribution of resources and facilities to meet the requirements of program delivery, research, and associated services in each section and quality evaluations must consider both performance in each section as well as the program overall. To satisfy these requirements: 2.3.1 Resources, facilities and staffing provisions should be comparable in both sections. 2.3.2 Program administrators in both sections and staff teaching the same courses should be fully involved in planning and reporting processes and decision making, and communicate regularly about the program through appropriate processes that are consistent with bylaws and regulations of the Higher Council of Education. 2.3.3 Male and female sections should be adequately represented in the membership of relevant committees and councils. 2.3.4 Planning processes and program and course specifications should lead to comparable standards in each section while taking account of differing needs. 2.3.5 Planning and implementation processes should ensure that reports on courses and the program, and information on key performance indicators show results for both sections as well as for the program as a whole. 2.4 Integrity Teaching and other staff involved with the program must meet high ethical standards of honesty and integrity including avoidance of conflicts of interest and avoidance of plagiarism in their teaching, research, administrative and service functions. These standards must be maintained in all dealings with students, teaching and other staff, and in relationships with other internal and external agencies including both government and non-government organizations. To satisfy these requirements: 11
2.4.1 Teaching and other staff and students should comply with codes of practice relating to ethical conduct in research, teaching, performance evaluation and assessment, committee decision making and in the conduct of administrative and service activities. 2.4.2 Declarations of pecuniary interest should be made whenever they exist and conflicts of interest should be avoided in all dealings by teaching and other staff. 2.4.3 Advertising and promotional material should always be truthful, avoid any actual or implied misrepresentations or exaggerated claims, or negative comments about other programs or institutions. 2.5 Internal Policies and Regulations Policies and regulations must be established that clearly define the major responsibilities and procedurer for the administration of the program and for committees and teaching and other staff and students involved. 2.5.1 Terms of reference and operating procedures associated with the program should be established for major committees and administrative positions. 2.5.2 Policies and regulations should be made available to staff and students and kept in locations that are readily accessible to all teaching and other staff and students who are affected by them, including new members of teaching and other staff, and members of committees. 2.5.3 Decisions made by committees on procedural and academic matters should be recorded and referred to as a guide in future related decisions to ensure consistency. 2.5.4 Guidelines or regulations should be established for dealing with recurring procedural or academic issues. 2.5.5 All policies, regulations, terms of reference and statements of responsibility relating to the management and delivery of the program should be periodically reviewed and amended as required in the light of changing circumstances. Evidence and Performance Indicators Evidence about effective management could include documents setting out policies, terms of reference and operating procedures for major committees and administrative positions, responses to surveys of teaching and other staff and students about procedures followed, and opinions of senior administrators in the institution to which program administrators are responsible. Evidence of dissemination of integrity expectations should include information on websites, advertisements and awareness of requirements on the part of staff and students in interviews or surveys. Indicators could be at least partly based on responses to surveys by teaching and other staff and students, graduates, employers and professional bodies. 12
Standard 3: Management of Program Quality Assurance Teaching and other staff involved in the program must regularly evaluate their own performance and be committed to improving both their own performance and the quality of the program as a whole. Regular evaluations of quality must be undertaken within each course based on valid evidence and appropriate benchmarks, and plans for improvement made and implemented. Quality must be assessed by reference to evidence and include consideration of specific performance indicators and challenging external benchmarks. Central importance must be attached to student learning outcomes with each course contributing to the achievement of overall program objectives. Requirements 3.1 Commitment to Quality Improvement in the Program Program administrators and teaching and other staff must be committed to maintaining and improving the quality of the program. 3.1.1 All teaching and other staff should participate in self-evaluations and cooperate with reporting and improvement processes in their sphere of activity. 3.1.2 Innovation and creativity should be encouraged within a framework of clear policy guidelines and accountability processes. 3.1.3 Mistakes and weaknesses should be recognized by those responsible and used as a basis for planning for improvement. 3.1.4 Improvements in performance should be acknowledged and outstanding achievements recognized. 3.1.5 Evaluation processes and planning for improvement should be integrated into normal administrative processes. 3.2 Scope of Quality Assurance Processes Quality assurance activities that are necessary to ensure good quality must apply to all aspects of program planning and delivery including provision of related services, and to all teaching and other staff involved in those processes. 3.2.1 Quality assurance processes should deal with all aspects of program planning and delivery, including services and resources provided by other parts of the institution. 3.2.2 Quality evaluations should provide an overview of quality issues for the total program as well as components within it (including individual courses and program offerings in sections for male and females students) 3.2.3 Quality evaluations should consider inputs, processes and outcomes, with particular attention given to learning outcomes for students. 3.2.4 Quality assurance processes should include evaluations of performance in relation to both continuing routine activities and to strategic objectives. 3.2.5 Quality assurance processes should ensure both that required standards are met, and that there is continuing improvement in performance. 3.2.6 If the program is offered in sections for male and female students detailed evaluations in relation to all standards should be carried out in a consistent way in both sections and quality reports on those standards should report on any significant differences found and make appropriate recommendations for action in response to what is found. 3.3 Administration of Quality Assurance Processes Quality assurance arrangements for the program must meet any particular requirements for this program as well as the quality assurance arrangements for the institution as a whole. 13
3.3.1 Quality assurance processes should be fully integrated into normal planning and program delivery arrangements. 3.3.2 Evaluations should be (i) based on evidence, (ii) linked to appropriate standards, (iii) include predetermined performance indicators, and (iv) take account of independent verification of interpretations. 3.3.3 Quality assurance processes for the program should make use of standard forms and survey instruments for use in the institution as well as gathering any special information required for this program. 3.3.4 Statistical data on indicators, including grade distributions, progression and completion rates should be retained in an accessible central data base and regularly reviewed and reported in annual and periodic program reports. 3.3.5 Responsibility should be given to a member of the teaching staff to provide leadership and support for the management of quality assurance processes. The responsible person should involve other staff in the planning and carrying out of the quality assurance processes. 3.3.6 The quality assurance arrangements for the program should be regularly evaluated and improved. As part of these reviews unnecessary requirements should be removed to streamline the system and avoid unnecessary work. 3.3.7 Processes for evaluation of quality should be transparent with criteria for judgments and evidence considered made clear. 3.4 Use of Performance Indicators and Benchmarks Specific indicators must be identified for monitoring performance and appropriate benchmarks selected for comparative evaluation of the achievement of goals and objectives and quality of performance more generally. 3.4.1 Information should be provided regularly on key performance indicators required by the institution. 3.4.2 Additional performance indicators and benchmarks relevant to this particular program should also be selected and used for program evaluation and reporting. 3.4.3 The additional benchmarks for the program should be approved by the appropriate senior committee or council within the institution (eg. senior academic committee, university council) 3.4.4 Benchmarks for comparing quality with past performance and for comparisons with similar programs elsewhere should be selected and used in evaluations and reports. 3.4.5 The format for indicators and benchmarks should be consistent with those used across the institution. 3.5 Independent Verification of Evaluations Evaluations of performance must be based on evidence (including but not restricted to predetermined performance indicators and benchmarks) and conclusions based on that evidence must be independently verified. To satisfy these requirements: 3.5.1 Self-evaluations of quality of performance should be based on several related sources of evidence including feedback through user surveys and opinions of stakeholders such as students and staff, graduates and employers. 3.5.2 Interpretations of evidence about quality should be verified by independent advice from persons familiar with the type of activity concerned and impartial mechanisms should be used to reconcile any differing opinions. 3.5.3 Standards of learning outcomes achieved by students should be checked in relation to the requirements of the National Qualifications Framework and standards in similar programs at other comparable institutions. 14
Evidence and Performance Indicators Evidence about the quality of management of quality assurance processes can be obtained by looking at the extent of involvement in quality assurance processes by teaching and other staff and the adequacy of responses made to evaluations that are made in program and course reports and other reports prepared. The outcomes of those processes can be assessed by examining trend data to see whether there has been progressive improvement in the planning and administration and the learning outcomes achieved by students. Evidence about the quality processes followed can be obtained from surveys or discussions with staff or students and the quality of reports prepared by program administrators, including whether the quality evaluations are evidence-based and appropriately benchmarked in relation to external standards. The key performance indicators identified by the Commission should be used, but additional indicators linked to the particular mission of the institution and the program should also be used when needed. When goals and objectives are established for the development and improvement of the program appropriate performance indicators should be identified as part of that planning process. 15
Standard 4: Learning and Teaching Student learning outcomes must be clearly specified, consistent with the National Qualifications Framework and requirements for employment or professional practice. Standards of learning must be assessed and verified through appropriate processes and benchmarked against demanding and relevant external reference points. Teaching staff must be appropriately qualified and experienced for their particular teaching responsibilities, use teaching strategies suitable for different kinds of learning outcomes and participate in activities to improve their teaching effectiveness. Teaching quality and the effectiveness of programs must be evaluated through student assessments and graduate and employer surveys with evidence from these sources used as a basis for plans for improvement. If the program is offered in different sections for male and female students required standards must be the same, equivalent resources provided, and evaluations must include data for each section. Requirements 4.1 Student Learning Outcomes Intended student learning outcomes must be consistent with the National Qualifications Framework, and with generally accepted standards for the field of study concerned including requirements for any professions for which students are being prepared. To satisfy these requirements: 4.1.1 Relevant academic and professional advice should be considered when defining intended learning outcomes. 4.1.2 Intended learning outcomes should be consistent with the National Qualifications Framework. (covering all of the domains of learning at the standards required). 4.1.3 Programs leading to professional qualifications should develop learning outcomes that meet requirements for professional practice in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the fields concerned. (These requirements should include local accreditation requirements and also take account of international accreditation requirements for that field of study, and any Saudi Arabian regulations or special regional needs.) 4.1.4 Any special student attributes specified by the institution for its graduates, or in the program, should be incorporated as intended learning outcomes in all relevant courses and required student activities, and appropriate teaching strategies and forms of student assessment used for them. 4.1.5 Appropriate program evaluation mechanisms including graduating student surveys, employment outcome data, employer feedback and subsequent performance of graduates should be used to provide evidence about the appropriateness of intended learning outcomes and the extent to which they are achieved. (see also sections 4.3 and 4.4 dealing with processes for program evaluation and verification of standards of student achievement) 4.2 Program Development Processes Programs must be planned as coherent packages of learning experiences in which all courses contribute in planned ways to the intended learning outcomes for the program. 4.2.1 Plans for delivery and evaluation of the program should be included in detailed program specifications that include knowledge and skills to be acquired, and strategies for teaching and assessment for the progressive development of learning in all the domains of learning. 4.2.2 Plans for courses should be set out in course specifications that include knowledge and skills to be acquired and strategies for teaching and assessment for the domains of learning to be addressed in each course. 4.2.3 The content and strategies set out in course specifications should be coordinated and followed in practice to ensure effective progressive development of learning for the total program in all the domains of learning. 16
4.2.4 Planning should include any action necessary to ensure that teaching staff are familiar with and are able to use the strategies included in the program and course specifications. 4.2.5 The academic and/or professional fields for which students are being prepared should be monitored on a continuing basis with necessary adjustments made in programs and in course content and reference materials to ensure continuing relevance and quality. 4.2.6 In all professional programs continuing advisory panels with membership that includes leading practitioners from the relevant occupations or professions should be used to monitor and advise on content and quality of programs. 4.2.7 New program proposals or major changes in programs should be assessed and approved or rejected by the institution s senior academic committee using criteria that ensure thorough and appropriate consultation in planning and capacity for effective implementation. 4.3 Program Evaluation and Review Processes The quality of all courses and of the program as a whole must be monitored regularly through appropriate evaluation mechanisms and amended as required, with more extensive quality reviews conducted periodically. 4.3.1 Courses and programs should be evaluated and reported on annually and reports should include information about the effectiveness of planned strategies and the extent to which intended learning outcomes are being achieved. 4.3.2 When changes are made as a result of evaluations details of those changes and the reasons for them should be retained in course and program portfolios. 4.3.3 Quality indicators that include learning outcome measures should be established for all courses and the program. 4.3.4 Records of student completion rates should be kept for all courses and for the program, and included among quality indicators. 4.3.5 Reports on the program should be reviewed annually by senior administrators and quality committees. 4.3.6 Systems should be established for central recording and analysis of course completion and program progression and completion rates and student course and program evaluations, with summaries and comparative data distributed automatically to departments, colleges, senior administrators and relevant committees at least once each year. 4.3.7 If problems are found through program evaluations appropriate and timely action should be taken to make improvements. 4.3.8 In addition to annual evaluations a comprehensive reassessment of the program should be conducted at least once every five years. Procedures for conducting these reassessments should be consistent with policies and procedures established for the institution. 4.3.9 Program reviews should involve experienced people from relevant industries and professions, and experienced teaching staff from other institutions. 4.3.10 In program reviews opinions about the program should be obtained from students and graduates through surveys and interviews, discussions with teaching staff, and other stakeholders such as employers. 4.3.11 If the program is offered in sections for male and female students evaluations should provide data for each section as well as for the program as a whole, and any deficiencies in one or the other section dealt with appropriately in recommendations for action. 4.4 Student Assessment Student assessment processes must be appropriate for the intended learning outcomes and effectively and fairly administered with independent verification of standards achieved. 4.4.1 Student assessment mechanisms should be appropriate for the different forms of learning sought. 4.4.2 Assessment practices should be clearly communicated to students at the beginning of courses. 17
4.4.3 Appropriate, valid and reliable mechanisms should be used for verifying standards of student achievement in relation to relevant internal and external benchmarks. The standard of work required for different grades should be consistent over time, comparable in courses offered within a program and college and the institution as a whole, and in comparison with other highly regarded institutions. (Arrangements for verifying standards may include measures such as check marking of random samples of student work by teaching staff at other institutions, and independent comparisons of standards achieved with other comparable institutions within Saudi Arabia, and internationally.) 4.4.4 Grading of students tests, assignments and projects should be assisted by the use of matrices or other means to ensure that the planned range of domains of student learning outcomes are addressed. 4.4.5 Arrangements should be made within the institution for training of teaching staff in the theory and practice of student assessment. 4.4.6 Policies and procedures should include action to be taken to deal with situations where standards of student achievement are inadequate or inconsistently assessed. 4.4.7 Effective procedures should be used to ensure that work submitted by students is actually done by the students concerned. 4.4.8 Feedback to students on their performance and results of assessments during each semester should be given promptly and accompanied by mechanisms for assistance if needed. 4.4.9 Assessments of student work should be conducted fairly and objectively. 4.4.10 Criteria and processes for academic appeals should be made known to students and administered equitably. (see also item 5.3) 4.5 Educational Assistance for Students Effective systems must be in place for assisting student learning through academic advice, study facilities, monitoring student progress, encouraging high performing students, and providing assistance when needed by individuals. 4.5.1 Teaching staff should be available at sufficient scheduled times for both full time and part time students as appropriate consultation and advice to students. (availability of staff should be confirmed, not just assumed because times have been scheduled). 4.5.2 Teaching resources (including staffing, learning resources and equipment, and clinical or other field placements) should be sufficient to ensure achievement of the intended learning outcomes. 4.5.3 If arrangements for student academic counselling and advice include electronic communications through email or other means the effectiveness of those processes should be evaluated through means such as analysis of response times and student evaluations. 4.5.4 Adequate tutorial assistance should be provided to ensure understanding and ability to apply learning. 4.5.5 Appropriate preparatory and orientation mechanisms should be provided to prepare students for study in a higher education environment. Particular attention should be given to preparation for the language of instruction, self directed learning, and bridging programs if necessary for students transferring to the institution with credit for previous studies. Preparatory studies must not be counted within the credit hour requirements for programs. 4.5.6 If the language of instruction in the program is English, action should be taken to ensure that language skills are adequate for instruction in that language when students begin their studies. (This may be done through language training prior to admission to the program. Language skills expected on entry should be benchmarked against other highly regarded institutions with the objective of skills at least comparable to minimum requirements for admission of international students in universities in English speaking countries. The benchmarking process should involve testing of at least a representative sample of students on major recognized English language tests) 4.5.7 If preparatory programs are outsourced to other providers the institution should still accept responsibility for ensuring the necessary standards are met and entry requirements to the program are maintained. 4.5.8 Systems should be established for monitoring and coordinating student workload across courses. 18
4.5.9 Progress of individual students should be monitored and assistance and/or counselling provided to those facing difficulties. 4.5.10 Year to year progression rates and program completion rates should be monitored, and analysed to identify and provide assistance to any categories of students who may be having difficulty. 4.5.11 Feedback on performance by students and results of assessments should be given promptly to students and accompanied by mechanisms for providing assistance if needed. 4.5.12 Adequate facilities should be provided for private study with access to computer terminals and other necessary equipment. 4.5.13 Teaching staff should be familiar with the range of support services available in the institution for students, and should refer them to appropriate sources of assistance when required. 4.5.14 The adequacy of arrangements for assistance to students should be periodically assessed through processes that include, but are not restricted to, feedback from students. 4.6 Quality of Teaching Teaching must be of high quality with appropriate strategies used for different categories of learning outcomes. To meet this requirement: 4.6.1 Effective orientation and training programs should be provided within the institution for new, short term and part time teaching staff. (To be effective these programs should ensure that teaching staff are fully briefed on required learning outcomes, on planned teaching and assessment strategies, and the contribution of their course to the program as a whole.) 4.6.2 Teaching strategies should be appropriate for the different types of learning outcomes the program is intended to develop. 4.6.3 Strategies of teaching and assessment set out in program and course specifications should be followed by teaching staff with flexibility to respond to the needs of different groups of students. 4.6.4 Students should be fully informed about course requirements in advance through course descriptions that include knowledge and skills to be developed, work requirements and assessment processes. 4.6.5 The conduct of courses should be consistent with the outlines provided to students and with the course specifications. 4.6.6 Textbooks and reference material should be up to date and incorporate the latest developments in the field of study. 4.6.7 Textbooks and other required materials should be available in sufficient quantities before classes commence. 4.6.8 Attendance requirements in courses should be made clear to students and compliance with these requirements monitored and enforced. 4.6.9 Effective systems should be used for evaluation of courses and of teaching. 4.6.10 The effectiveness of different planned teaching strategies in achieving learning outcomes in different domains of learning should be regularly reviewed and adjustments should be made in response to evidence about their effectiveness. 4.6.11 Reports should be provided to program administrators on the delivery of each course and these should include details if any planned content could not be dealt with and any difficulties found in using planned strategies. 4.6.12 Appropriate adjustments should be made in plans for teaching if needed after consideration of course reports. 4.7 Support for Improvements in Quality of Teaching Appropriate strategies must be used by the program administrators and teaching staff to support continuing improvement in quality of teaching. 4.7.1 Training programs in teaching skills should be provided within the institution for both new and continuing teaching staff including those with part time teaching responsibilities. 19